History

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a United States federal law that was approved by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman for federal purposes and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. In the cases of United States v. Windsor (2013) and Aubergefell v. Hodges (2015), the provisions of this Act were declared unconstitutional or effectively unenforceable.

Gay marriage became a problem in the late 1980s, especially as opposed to socially conservative groups. Both members of the Republican Party, Congressman Bob Barr, and Senator Don Nichols introduced the bill in May 1996. It passed both houses of Congress with a large, veto-proof majority, in which the opposition was led by almost a third of the Democratic. Cox in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Clinton criticized the law as “controversial and unnecessary,” but nevertheless signed it into law in September 1996.
Gay marriage became a problem in the late 1980s, especially as opposed to socially conservative groups. Both members of the Republican Party, Congressman Bob Barr, and Senator Don Nichols introduced the bill in May 1996. It passed both houses of Congress with a large, veto-proof majority, in which the opposition was led by almost a third of the Democratic. Cox in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Clinton criticized the law as “controversial and unnecessary,” but nevertheless signed it into law in September 1996.

Section 2 of the Act allows states to refuse the recognition of same-sex marriages by other states. Section 3 certifies disapproval of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for civil servants, benefits for social security survivors, immigration, bankruptcy, and joint tax filing. It also eliminated the laws protecting the families of federal officers examining eligibility for financial assistance to gay spouses, and the federal ethics laws applicable to opposing spouses.

After that, Doma was subject to numerous lawsuits and cancellations. In the United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court declared Doma’s Section 3 unconstitutional under the Doma Practice Clause, which requires the federal government to recognize state-owned same-sex marriages. In Obergefell v. Jose, the court held that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, which protects both the Dow Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The order calls on all states to perform and recognize the marriage of same-sex couples, under which section 2 of the Doma will not be suspended or enforced.

Background:
The issue of legally recognizing same-sex marriage attracted mainstream attention, especially in the 1980s. A sympathetic reporter raised the issue in 1967 and described it as “high in the expectations of deviation.” In one early case, homosexual activist Jack Baker brought a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota in 1970 after he denied a marriage license to marry another man. The Minnesota Supreme Court (in Baker v. Nelson) has ruled that restricting marriage to an opposite-sex couple is not a violation of the Constitution. Baker later changed his legal name to Pat Lane McConnell and married his male partner in 1971, but the marriage was not legally recognized. In the Knight Ride, a “black lesbian marriage” was filmed in the 1972 Off-Broadway play

In 1979, Integrity USA, an organization of gay Episcopalians, raised the issue when the American Episcopal Church considered a ban on homosexuals being ordained as priests.
The New York Times said the question was “all but inactive” until the late 1980s, when homosexual activists said, “The AIDS epidemic … brings to mind many people the benefits of inheritance and death.”. ”
In May 1989, Denmark established a registered partnership that granted many marriage rights to same-sex couples. That same year, the New York Supreme Court ruled that two homosexuals qualify as family members for the purposes of New York City’s rent control regulations. Within the movement for gay and lesbian rights, debates between supporters of sexual freedom and social unity were beginning, Andrew Sullivan, published an article “Here Comes the Bride” in the New Republic in August 1989. In which the issue of same-sex marriage was discussed: “The need to rebel has quietly resolved the desire to belong. In September 1989, the California State Bar Association advocated for gay rights. Has called for the acceptance of same-sex marriages before the issue is adopted.

Gary Bauer, head of the Socially Conservative Family Research Council, predicted the case would be “an important battleground of the 1990s.” In 1991, Georgia Attorney General Michael J. Bowers withdrew his offer of employment to a homosexual who intended to marry another woman at a Jewish wedding ceremony. In 1993, a committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States issued a report considering the blessing of same-sex marriage with Lutherans, saying that lifelong avoidance is harmful to same-sex couples. The Bishops’ Conference responded, “For the blessing of homosexual relationships, there is neither tradition nor tradition in the Scriptures for the establishment of a government ceremony by this church. Table (1993) has called for legalizing same-sex marriage. Advocated

In Outside v. Mike (1993), the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state must express a strong interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. This raised concerns among opponents of sexism, who feared that same-sex marriage in Hawaii could be legal and that other states would accept or accept these marriages under the full faith and credibility clause of the United States Constitution. Will be forced to do so. The House Judiciary Committee’s 1996 report called for the Doma to respond to the Atlantic, because “redefining marriage in Hawaii could include same-sex couples to the extent that federal and legal rights for such couples Enable. ”

Section 1. Short title
This act may be referred to as the “Defense of Marriage Act.”
Section 2. Options are reserved for states:
Judicial proceedings of any state, territory, or territory of the United States, or of the Indian tribe, respecting any public process, record, or the relation between persons of any state, territory, occupation, or tribe. Will not need to be affected. The same-sex, which is considered as marriage under the laws of any other state, territory, occupation, or tribe, or the rights or claims arising out of such a relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In any determination of any law, regulation, or interpretation of any law of Congress, or of various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means a legal union between a man and a woman, whose status Husband is a wife and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to the opposite sex which is husband or wife.

Implementation and role of President Clinton
At that time, Georgia Representative Bob Barr of the Republic authored the Defense of Marriage Act and presented it to the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996. Senator Don Nichols, (R) Oklahoma, introduced the bill in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee said the purpose of the act was to “reflect and respect the collective moral judgment and to express moral displeasure with homosexuality.” Congressional sponsors of the Act have said that under the bill, the US Code has been amended, which is considered federal. The law, for over 200 years; is that marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is the husband or wife of the opposite sex.

“If some states want to recognize same-sex marriage, they can,” said Nichols. He said the bill would ensure that “49 other states are not needed and the federal government does not need it.” In opposing the bill, Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder said, “You can amend any constitution Can’t get through. General Chat Chat Lounge Everybody knows. It’s just stirring in the political waters and seeing how much you might hate. Barr contends that the constitutional belief and credibility clause empowers Congress to determine the “effect” of the responsibility of giving each state “full confidence and credibility” to the operations of other states. ۔

The 1996 Republican Party Platform endorsed the Doma and cited only section 2 of the Act: “We reject discrimination rules for coverage of sexual preference, and we require states to To prevent being forced to identify – the Defense Marriage Act ratifies – sax unions – Doma or gay marriage was not mentioned on the Democratic Party platform this year. In an interview in the gay magazine The Advocate, Clinton said, “I oppose same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is the union of man and woman. This is my long-standing status, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered. “But he also criticized the Doma as” controversial and unnecessary. ”

This legislation went the fastest route through Congress, gaining strong approval in both Republican-controlled congressional chambers. On July 12, 1996, there were only 65 Democrats, and then Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Steve Gundson (R-WI), 342 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, with 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats. Voted to pass the Doma. Then, on September 10, 1996, 84 senators, including the majority of Democratic senators and all Republicans, voted in favor of the Doma. Democratic senators voted 32 to 14 on the bill (the Prior of Argentina was absent), and Democratic representatives voted in favor of 118 to 65, of which 15 did not. All Republicans in both Houses voted for the bill, plus Steve Gunderson, a Republican from Wisconsin, a member of the independently gay Republican Congress.

While his stated stance was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized the Doma as “unnecessary and divisive,” and his press secretary called it “gay, simple and Easy. ” However, when Congress passed the bill with enough votes to end the presidential veto, Clinton signed the Doma. After many years, he said he was so reluctant, in view of the veto-proof majority, to refrain from politically attaching himself to the currently unpopular cause of such sexual marriage and to the US Constitution. To block the motion for a proposed federal amendment of the ban. Gay marriage Clinton, who was traveling to Congress while working, signed the law on September 21, 1996, on her return to Washington, DC.

No signing ceremony was held for the Doma, nor was there any photo taken to sign the law. The White House issued a statement that said Clinton: “Despite the enactment of this law, despite the violent and sometimes divisive statements surrounding it, discrimination, violence or intimidation against anyone Should not be considered to offer any excuse for “sexual orientation.” Nevertheless, later that year, Clinton ran ads on Christian radio stations across the country on how he implemented the Doma. The ads were pulled after a massive setback by LGBT groups.

In 2013, then-White House press secretary, Mike McCreary, reminded that Clinton’s “currency was clearly running from the political facts of an election year in 1996.” Appointed as the US Ambassador, he described the shock and anger the Clinton community signed on the Doma. On Harlem’s statement, Clinton was the first president to have voted for gay rights. Advocated, called for AIDS funding, supported gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and openly publicized LGBT The signing of his Doma was thus considered by many in the community as a great betrayal.

On August 13, 2009, during the Netroots Nation, when LGBT activist Lynn Hudson encountered Clinton, she explained that she had to sign the Doma to prevent constitutional amendments that would present same-sex marriage. Are: “We were trying at that time, a very reactive Congress to launch an attempt to send constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in the states. Get a basic vote for President Bush, I think I’m clear that the Republican had to do something to stop Congress from presenting it.

In an optional article for the Washington Post, dated March 7, 2013, Clinton again suggested that, at this time, to abstain from approving a constitutional amendment banning sex, the Doma is necessary. Which will soon give arguments for the abolition of the Doma on the United States vs. Windsor.

Clinton’s explanation for signing the DOMA is controversial by gay rights activist Elizabeth Birch: “In 1996, I was president of the Human Rights Campaign, and there was no real danger of a federal merger amendment. The conflict would erupt about eight years later, in 2004, when President Bush announced that the central policy goal of his administration was to approve such amendments.

Ivan Wolfson, who ran my coalition since independence in 1996, while a Lambda Legal lawyer also criticized the suggestion that the Doma was preventing something even worse: “This is absolute nonsense. Anyone for eight years’ There was no talk about ‘worse’ – later on – there was no talk about constitutional amendments, and it was possible for anyone to – and, of course, know that it wasn’t really possible. To prevent the idea that people are swallowing the Doma – the constitutional amendment is really just historical revisionism and not correct – that was never an argument in the 90s.

However, political talk has not been heard of the possibility of using any constitutional amendment to restrict marriage rights. For example, in January 1996, the House Judiciary Committee for State Hawaii voted 12-1 in favor of passage of Bill HB 117, which was intended to amend the Hawaii constitution to define marriage as a man. And a woman was involved. In 1998, the first anti-gay marriage amendment was included in the formation of the US state, though it was not until 2002 that a federal marriage amendment was introduced for the first time in the US Congress.

Impact
The General Accounting Office released a report in 1997 that identified “1,049 federal legislative provisions that were classified in the United States Code, which states that marital rights, rights, and privileges perpetuate marital status.” Or in which marital status is a factor. “In updating its report in 2004, GAO found that the number had increased to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003. In regards to social security, housing, and food stamps, GAO found that “marital relations must be recognized as program design [s].” The report also noted several other major categories of programs that affected – The benefits of veterans, including pensions and survivor benefits. Taxes on income, real estate, gifts, and property sales. And benefits from both federal employees, civilian and military – and identifying features such as the copyright creator’s spouse rights and the spouse’s rights to Congress members and the financial disclosure requirements of some federal government officials. ۔ Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs are also involved. For example, financial support for “family farms” is limited only to those in which “the majority of marriage or bloodline individuals are interested.”

Because the Federal Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governs most employees’ benefits provided by private employees, so when DEMA speaks of health care, pension, and disability benefits to same-sex partners. So the tax breaks for employers and employees in the private sector have been removed. On the basis of equality with conflicting spouses. ERISA does not affect employees of state and local government or churches, nor does it extend benefits such as employee leave and vacation.

Under the Doma, homosexuals were not considered married for immigration purposes. American citizens and permanent residents of same-sex marriages could not apply for their spouses, nor could they travel to the United States on a family or job-based visa with their spouses. In such a marriage a non-citizen cannot use it as a basis for obtaining a waiver or removal from the United States.